Understand this about autism/Aspergers and pretty much any state considered disordered as compared to the general population: meeting a diagnostic criteria includes having some persistent behavioral anomalies. Having some of the same persistent behavioral anomalies does not qualify one for the diagnosis.
True. We have the DSM-IV for a reason, and too often, it seems that people do not understand that there are hard criteria for making a diagnosis of any mental disorder. But:
Very few of any who actually earn the diagnosis are capable of anything productive.
Um... how so? I don't know how many people are diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome or high-functioning autism, but I don't know of a reason that such people cannot be gainfully and meaningfully employed. (My bias here is that I have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. I doubt most people around me know, even though it isn't a gigantic secret.) Further, I see nothing in the DSM-IV criteria for Asperger's Syndrome that would automatically preclude productivity. Of course, it is entirely possible that the criteria themselves are not a satisfactory definition of the disorder, but at least in my case, I have had little trouble finding work in one of my two favored career lines at any given time.
And if one were to go with the behavioral criteria, the vast majority would earn themselves a far less appealing diagnosis or three, and which point they'd rebel against the process and disclaim any association with any disorder.
Please substantiate.
